UNION
138
UNION
och and then banished to the Greater Oasis in Upper
Egypt, his personal influence over his disciples ceased.
But his doctrine was undoubtedly derived from his
former master, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and, as
Theodore's memory was cherished as that of the
greatest theological light of Syria, the condemned
doctrine found many friends in the Eastern Patri-
archate, and was taken up with special zeal at Edessa.
From thence it spread to the neighbouring kingdom
of Persia, where it was welcomed and protected by the
Persian king as tending to emancipate his Christian
subjects from Byzantine influence. Shortly after-
wards the prevailing sentiment at Antioch became
Monophysite, and the Nestorians of the patriarchate
had to take refuge in Persia, with the result that the
subsequent development of the heresy had its centre
of propagation in the Persian town of Seleucia-
Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, where was its metropolitan
see. These Nestorians had a fine missionary spirit,
and evangelized many countries in the Far East,
some even reaching China, and others founding those
Christian communities on the Malabar Coast of India
called the Thomas Christians, or Christians of St.
Thomas. This Nestorian Church reached its highest
pitch of prosperity in the eleventh century, but the
Mongol invasion in the thirteenth and fom'teenth
centuries involved its adherents in ruin, and the great
mass of their posterity became absorbed in the general
Mohammedan population. They are now repre-
sented by a small body, who dwell on the borders of
Lake Urumiyah in Kurdistan and in the neighbour-
ing highlands. They are not a very civilized race and
probably know httle of the doctrine which was the
original cause of their secession, or know it only as
the patriotic watchword of their race. A still
smaller body of Uniats of the same spiritual ancestry
and the same liturgical rite are called Chaldees and
live in the Euphrates and Tigris valley. In 1S70 their
catholicos seceded on a purely personal matter, and
induced his people to refuse acceptance of the Vatican
decrees. They returned to unity seven years later,
but the episode seems to show that their faith is not
very firm.
C. Monophysitism. — The Monophysite schism had still more serious consequences. Its distinctive doe- trine is associated with the name of Eutyches, former archimandrite of a monastery near Constantinople, and Dioscorus, the nephew of St. Cyril and his suc- cessor in the patriarchal See of Alexandria. This doctrine, which was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, contrasted with Nestorianism by running to the opposite extreme. It maintained that in Christ there is not only a single personality, but also only a single nature. "Of two natures but not in two natures" was its phrase; for the Monophysites were zealous upholders of the decrees of Ephesus, and affirmed that Mary was the Theo tokos, from whom her Son received a perfect human nature; but they maintained that the effect of the union was that the Divine nature absorbed the human so that there were no longer two natures, but one only; anything short of that seemed to them to dissolve the essential unity of Christ's person. At Ephesus the two theolo- gians mentioned had stood by the side of St. CjtH and had fought hard for the condemnation of Nestorian- ism just on this ground, that it amounted to a denial of the unity of Christ ; and now it seemed to them that his doctrine, which had triumphed so splendidly at Ephesus, had been condemned at Chalcedon. Nor can it be denied that some unguarded expressions used by St. Cyril, though not so intended by him, were susceptible of a Monophysite interpretation. Besides Eutyches and Dioscorus, some of those who had signed the decrees of the new council felt that St. CjtII's expressions were affected by its decisions, and they returned home dissatisfied.
But here, too, it was chiefly racial feeling which,
by intensifying the crisis, precipitated a far-reaching
schism. Although heUenized on the surface by their
incorporation first in the Macedonian Empire and
then in the Roman, the populations of Egypt and
Syria were racially distinct from the Byzantines who
governed them and the Greek colonists who had
settled among them. Hence their attitude towards
the dominant race was one of dislike and resentment,
and they welcomed the opportunity which enabled
them to assert in some measure their national dis-
tinctness. Accordingly, when the Egj-ptians were
assured that their great hero St. CjtO had been out-
raged by a condemnation of his doctrine, they rallied
round Timothy jElurus, the usui'ping successor of
Dioscorus, and embraced his doctrine. The Greek
colonists of course took the orthodox side, or rather
took the side of the Court, just as it happened to be at
the time, whether orthodox or Monothelite, according
to the personal policy of the successive emperors; but
from the time of Chalcedon the great mass of the
Christian population of Eg\-pt became Monophysite
and was lost to the unity of the Church. Two cen-
turies later the Mohammedan invasion came both to
emphasize and to enfeeble this extensive schism.
During the interval, though the people were set
against orthodoxy, the imperial power could do much
to enforce it, but when the Mohammedans came the
whole influence of the cahphs was used to confirm the
schism — that is, in those whom they could not suc-
ceed in gaining over to the religion of Islam. In the
Patriarchate of Antioch and the smaller Patriarchate
of Jerusalem events pursued a corresponding course.
The Christians of S>Tian race were predisposed to take
up with Monophysitisra just because their Byzantine
rulers were on the side of orthodo.xy, and so fell away
into a schism which, although from time to time
checked or modified by the action of the Court as
long as Byzantium retained its sovereignty over those
parts, settled down into a permanent separation, when
the Mohammedans had obtained possession of the
country, besides losing vast numbers of its adherents
by perversions to Mohammedanism.
The Christians of the present day who represent the former populations of the three splendid Patri- archates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem are few in number, and fall into five classes. First there are the schismatic Copts in Eg>'pt, descendants of the native Egyptians, whose numbers are estimated at about 150,000. Secondly the Abyssinians. These were in early days converted from Alexandria, and BO in due course passed into schism along •nath it. They form the great mass of the inhabitants of Abys- sinia, about three million and a half, and have kept their faith well, but are very ignorant of its teaching and duties. Thirdly, the Jacobites of SjTia, who bear the same relation to the ancient SjTians as the Copta to the ancient Egyptians, and are called Jacobites after Jacob Barradai {Barada?us), who preserved the episcopal succession when it was threatened by Jus- tinian. The Jacobites are to be found mostly in Mesopotamia, Syria, and Kurdistan, and are esti- mated as numbering some 80,000. Fourthly, the Thomas Christians on the Malabar Coast, who may number about 70,000. These were originally Nesto- rians, having been first evangelized, as we have seen, by the early Nestorians; the Portuguese sought to catholicize them by very harsh means, and succeeded only in attracting their dishke. When the Dutch succeeded the Portuguese in India, and began to persecute the Cathohcs, these Malabar communities returned to schism, but, not being able to find a Nestorian bishop, procured a Jacobite bishop from Jerusalem, to renew their episcopal succession, and thus ended in becoming Monophysites. Fifthly, the Armenians, if we include with those who dwell in Armenia Proper those of the same race and religion who are settled in Asia Minor, European Turkey,
